If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I know, because gnome devs don't want to hear what their users think (good or bad). All they want is bug reports. It has nothing to do with hate or yellow journalism. It has everything to do with gnome devs not being open to suggestion.

Do you have any idea how many crack suggestions hit the open dev channels? It is essential infinite high bandwith spam. Having a few developers sort the stuff and reply everyone dosent scale. So it is quite simple; Popular projects are run as do-cracies.

And no! Slinging poo-code or "suggestions" over the fence without any commitment to maintain it does not count as do-ing.

This counts for any project. There is a slightly different approach to public messaging though. Some places crack people are ignored because of lack/disinterest and other places they choose flattering as a mean of shutting crack pots. Mint tells "every user is important" and still they do their own thing or is hired by donations. Sure they will ship alot of half assed software to please they crowd but they cant possibly maintain it. Today more people care about image and PR than code.

Essential gnome is a give-away of free code developed by high quality standards which are matched by no one out there. It is backed by strong companies and have a clear goal and a vision. Everybody in free software should be happy about having such choice. But NOOOO people bitch because image and PR. It is sad to see otherwise bright people turn into a bunch of angry teenager who wants their products to be well imaged as Apples. And this is where yellow journalism prey. A teenagers mad club for echoing hate over lack of PR.

BTW You have no clue about gnome. @gnome suggestions should go into a bug report. Mark it as enhancement and apply your patchs. If your reasoning and code is sane you willl build up steam in no time. Otherwise you could try without the patches. I did a quick rundown at the most advertised enhancement imporoments for the shell and found at least ten suggestions from non-devs posted without paches which are pushed as high priority/high publicity right now.http://afaikblog.wordpress.com/2012/...etail-matters/

So essential you have no clue about dealing with gnome development and the numbers are against you. Yellow journalists will of course keep you believing otherwise because any lack of drama means lack of *clicks*. And gnome? They might need to hire "community" workers doing nothing for the software but blogging crap posts to avois yellow journalism. It is really sad to see free software needing nannies to keep the cry babies silent. This includes YOU!

What is this excuse then? We don't hear what users say cause they talk too much? Really? That is why it sucks? Cause they don't have time to listen?

Exactly they don't have time to listen. Also because it would be necessary to review all different opinions. They can't make every GNOME user happy.

GNOME lack developers. If they review all different user opinions and critics, they have much less time to develop good software. If you think this should change, try to join their developer team, and listen to the community

I will NEVER get the hate for Gnome 3, sure Gnome 2 did this and that better but when i started using Gnome 3 i cleared my mind about everything i know about "HOW" a desktop should be and unlike Unity i liked it a lot asap i work fast with it and when i switch to Windows 7 i REALLY miss it so yes for me the Gnome devs do a lot right.

Only thing i can complain on is the way to kill all ways to configure your system to your liking, no proper theme manager and gnome-tweak is really a piss poor solution, but really if they fix that i will like Gnome 3 even more.

[QUOTE=BO$$;297484]What is this excuse then? We don't hear what users say cause they talk too much? Really? That is why it sucks? Cause they don't have time to listen?[/QUOTE

If gnome sucks it must the least sucky option out there. Remember this is the team and spirit that made gnome2. Yes yhey dont have time to listen, answer and maintain every possible "suggestion". Plus some "suggestions" simply is orthogonal to the vision. Think about gnomes old mail client: Not popular, complex, and hard maintenance burden. While the heavy set of features is essential to enterprise customers this is NOT affordable in developer time for most parts of gnome.

So why spend all your developr time making an unmaintainable crash prone monster that no one likes? Gnome3 will get where gnome2 was by time. This time without smelling like th 90s.

overall I think Gnome 3 is a big improvement to Gnome 2, but some things I don't really like:

pulseaudio dependency

[...]

well now I found out that this dependency is actually no huge problem. Gnome shell will apart from maybe emphaty and few other apps still work fine, even if pulseaudio is removed. So and now I'm enjoining a super good sound quality under Fedora 18 (pre-Beta) with OSSv4.

My personal problem with Gnome 3 besides the Gnome devs attitude problems, is the technical design of the Shell.

I'm no developer, but the design of Shell, and Unity for that matter, concern me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems Unity is essentially a plugin for Compiz and Gnome-Shell is probably similar in it's dependance on Mutter. Basically these environments are dependant and tied into the compositer/WM and not modular.

If something in the window manager crashes, the whole environment can go down (I'm sure we're all familiar with the 'Oh no! Something went wrong' messages).

I guess they are trying to create tightly integrated environments yet it still seems odd. KDE, XFCE or E17 for example, can switch their compositors on and off (that in itself is handy) and don't rely on 3D acceleration. You still get the same desktop either way.

And now Unity and Shell are trying to push non 3D users through software rendering and boy, that seems pretty slow and horrible.

I think the Elementary team, despite being such a tight and integrated experience, have the right idea. I'm not sure about the need for 3D yet, but parts of the desktop like Wingpanel (the main panel), Plank (the dock) and even the menu (Slingshot) are modular and can be replaced if you wish it.

Everyone keeps repeating this. I followed the development of Gnome-Shell and GNOME3 as much as I could, and I never saw anything like it. Are you all sure that you are not confusing "attitude problems" and "not having the same vision as you"? It's funny how Linus is hold to such high esteem here despite sometimes saying really horrible things (don't get me wrong, I like the guy!) but as soon as anyone from GNOME (or even worse, the great satan Lennart!) you all go ballistic. It's interesting to observe, really...

I'm no developer, but the design of Shell, and Unity for that matter, concern me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems Unity is essentially a plugin for Compiz and Gnome-Shell is probably similar in it's dependance on Mutter. Basically these environments are dependant and tied into the compositer/WM and not modular.

If something in the window manager crashes, the whole environment can go down (I'm sure we're all familiar with the 'Oh no! Something went wrong' messages).

As a developer, I disagree.

And now Unity and Shell are trying to push non 3D users through software rendering and boy, that seems pretty slow and horrible.

Given that Fedora 17 with Gnome shell works well enough on a three year old eeepc, I don't think that is much of an issue.

The GNOME bashing is seriously getting old. And I think someone before nailed it by pointing out that this is a poll for GNOME3 haters by GNOME3 haters and the only reason for its existence is bringing in clicks for Phoronix.

Just for the record, I think GNOME3 is way better than GNOME2. It is far from perfect, but it is going in the right direction, and it is doing it fast! So, if any GNOME developers happen to read this (poor bastards!): You rock!

My personal problem with Gnome 3 besides the Gnome devs attitude problems, is the technical design of the Shell.

I'm no developer, but the design of Shell, and Unity for that matter, concern me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems Unity is essentially a plugin for Compiz and Gnome-Shell is probably similar in it's dependance on Mutter. Basically these environments are dependant and tied into the compositer/WM and not modular.

If something in the window manager crashes, the whole environment can go down (I'm sure we're all familiar with the 'Oh no! Something went wrong' messages).

I guess they are trying to create tightly integrated environments yet it still seems odd. KDE, XFCE or E17 for example, can switch their compositors on and off (that in itself is handy) and don't rely on 3D acceleration. You still get the same desktop either way.

And now Unity and Shell are trying to push non 3D users through software rendering and boy, that seems pretty slow and horrible.

I think the Elementary team, despite being such a tight and integrated experience, have the right idea. I'm not sure about the need for 3D yet, but parts of the desktop like Wingpanel (the main panel), Plank (the dock) and even the menu (Slingshot) are modular and can be replaced if you wish it.

<sarcasm> How dare you to question the gnome shell vision? You are obviously a hater. Go away! </sarcasm>

Everyone keeps repeating this. I followed the development of Gnome-Shell and GNOME3 as much as I could, and I never saw anything like it. Are you all sure that you are not confusing "attitude problems" and "not having the same vision as you"? It's funny how Linus is hold to such high esteem here despite sometimes saying really horrible things (don't get me wrong, I like the guy!) but as soon as anyone from GNOME (or even worse, the great satan Lennart!) you all go ballistic. It's interesting to observe, really...

Hello random GNOME dev? Hehe.

Anyway for me, and it seems many others, it's more the "GNOME brand" and "shaping the user experience"... kind of thing they keep spouting. I'm sure for some this seems like a great vision but it doesn't feel right. To me. But hey, that's why I use KDE nowadays. I'm just giving my views.

As a developer, I disagree.

But why? For example in KDE, if Plasma desktop crashes, it restarts itself and everything else is still running just fine. So, minor annoyance to the user, but everything still intact.
Any time something goes boom in Gnome-Shell, in my experience, after a error screen that is as useful as most Windows error messages (as in, not very) you end up back at the login manager and have to start again.

Also I actually don't mind Unity when its working well. But it's a concern to me why someone would build a desktop into a, at times, fragile accelerated environment when instead you could build the desktop itself and then add the compositing integration.

This also would have helped Ubuntu instead of having to build an additional 2D desktop (which they then scrapped because of the maintaining work of an extra environment) they could just, you know, switch off effects.